Answer:
Soil, climate, and natural resources affected all three economic regions.
Explanation:
Most people in the <u>Southern</u> <u>Colonies</u> were small farmers, the <em>owners</em> of the large plantations that developed in the warm climate and rich soil had <em>wealth</em> and <em>power</em>.
The correct answer is option d, that Santa Anna was quickly defeated at the Alamo.
Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna was the Mexican President at the time when the Texas revolution broke out in Mexico. Texas earlier was a part of Mexico, where land was so cheap that many Americans migrated to Texas. This revolution began because Tejanos ( Mexicans who lived in Texas) wanted to break away from Mexico on the issue of Slavery. Mexican laws opposed Slavery before the arrival of American, despite, Americans brought in slaves in Mexico. Therefore, the Tejanos and the Texans came together to fight for their freedom. For the suppression of the revolt president Santa Anna send an army to the fort of Alamo in San Antonio in 1836, but the army got defeat at the hand of the revolutionaries. After their victory in the revolt, they (Texans) formed the Republic of Texas.
True, also Spain was as competitive as England.
Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another. This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.
John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience. Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.
Further explanation:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan</em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and evil toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government</em> in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
